Well I guess that's where things break down. It looks to me like people are trying to find a way to use the rules to punish a character for being a dick. If a GM want's to slap down a player for being a dick he should. But he should say exactly why he's doing it, not pretend it has something to do with the rules.
When your class depends on those rules it becomes important. If a paladin is a "dick" as you put it as outlined in the OP he's no longer a paladin, for instance.
No one mentioned letting them go. The solution the cavalier outright rejected was taking them to a nearby town and turning them into a magistrate going so far as to beat his friend and ally to unconsciousness in order to carry out his self imposed death sentence.
What he did there was none of those.
OK, so if we agree that we can't let them go, than it really is a matter of whether or not these guys deserve a trial, and that dosen't fall under the scope of the good evil spectrum, it falls under the scope of the law chaos spectrum.
Well I guess that's where things break down. It looks to me like people are trying to find a way to use the rules to punish a character for being a dick. If a GM want's to slap down a player for being a dick he should. But he should say exactly why he's doing it, not pretend it has something to do with the rules.When your class depends on those rules it becomes important. If a paladin is a "dick" as you put it as outlined in the OP he's no longer a paladin, for instance.
Good does not mean nice. I had a friend who played a paladin that kept all the orders requirements, and was an insufferable braggart about it. Very condecending and full of himself. He was actually quite funny and interesting. Not all paladins have to be the same.
Did he go around slaughtering helpless prisoners? That's against the paladin code. If he didn't then your example is moot.
Killing helpless prisoners is evil. Mortal, human prisoners who are out cold, no ties to an evil deity or organization that you know of, etc. If you slit their throat while they're out/helpless you're saying that's not an issue of good/evil? That's my agree to disagree line.
Deserving a trial is not what I'm talking about. You can't leave them to their own devices necessarily but you can't really just kill them either. Plus, you're on your way to the town anyway for another mission. It costs you NOTHING to tie them up and take em with you and let the guard do what they will. If they have a kill on sight order out for them and they get arrows to the chest as you approach that's not on you.
That's an interesting viewpoint. If it is evil to slay unconsious captured foes, wouldn't the characters have a moral obligation not too take them into a town that would kill them? If so that means that the characters would have venture far and wide to find somone willing to feed prisioners indefinetly.
If not, then it dosen't really matter whether you kill them or the town folks kill him, your just as responsible for their death.
That's assuming they know there is such an order. If they did nothing is compelling them to help them either. They can leave them where they are and let "fate" play out. Take their gear lest they come to, of course. The wounds they sustained were legitimately gained by you defending yourself against them. None of that is evil.
If they didn't know of such an edict then why would it be evil?
Are you saying then that it is evil to turn someone over to their lawful execution?
Nope. I never said that. It's not good either to make that choice on your own. PCs are rarely, if ever, rulers of a land. They are wanderers. Even so, even paladins are only required to recognize legitimate authority. If there were a corrupt leadership in place and the level of crime required for an execution was remarkably low they would have compunction to turn anyone over to that rulership either even though they're "lawful."
Nope. I never said that. It's not good either to make that choice on your own.
Ok, I think this is the source of all are agreement. You think it's evil to make a decision without the aids of the court or some analagious entity, whereas I think most chaotic characters would agree (good, evil, and neutral alike) that a man must be responsible for their own decisions. Weather or not a the characters are part of any legitimate authority dosent really matter to a chaotic character, he'll still feel empowered to make that decision on his own.
How he forms decisions is one thing. Killing helpless prisoners is still evil.
But I thought you just said execution is ok?
You're trying to mince words. Killing helpless prisoners is never good. Lawful executions are an entirely different matter. A blanket "this is ok" is grossly insufficient. You're trying to oversimplify the matter abstracting even beyond pathfinder's own abstraction.
You're trying to mince words. Killing helpless prisoners is never good. Lawful executions are an entirely different matter.
It sounds like lawful and good are so intertwined in your mind you can't make a distinction. It seems your saying a lawful execution is good and a nonlawful execution of the same individual is bad. (Even though both boil down to killing helpless prisoners.) The distinction between these two scenarios isn't evil vs good, its law vs chaos.
Milo I agree.
from the prd "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. "
Are these innocent? can killing these protect innocent?
It entirely depends on the crimes they made hence my claim of your oversimplification. Killing someone over stealing some bread so their kids don't starve versus killing someone over war crimes is leagues upon leagues apart.
Good characters don't kill people for personal gain, convenience or malice. Evil characters do kill for those reasons. Law and chaos have nothing to do with that. They play into the motivations and how they respond to those things (matters of personal gain, convenience and malice).
I have the concepts of morality separate fine. Your framing is off in trying to sum up the nuance of good/evil and law/chaos into a single question void of context and is skewing the discussion.
What the cavalier did was purely a matter of convenience for himself. They already beat them down and they were bleeding out. Note the alchemist had not yet stabilized them. All they had to do was walk away. The average highwayman does not have the fortitude to stabilize himself. Most mortal, non-heroic characters don't. This is CRB text talking.
It entirely depends on the crimes they made hence my claim of your oversimplification. Killing someone over stealing some bread so their kids don't starve versus killing someone over war crimes is leagues upon leagues apart.
Good characters don't kill people for personal gain, convenience or malice. Evil characters do kill for those reasons.
I see no moral distinction between killing them and leaving them to die. I absolutely agree that killing for convenience an evil act. But I disagree that was a motive for the decision. The real question is "for the crime of attempted murder does a man deserve to die?" putting aside personal beliefs, a good character can reasonably argue yes. From their it's simply a matter of implementing that belief. I lawful person would use the courts, a chaotic one would do it himself.
They had all but guaranteed their deaths already simply by defending themselves and winning. In just a few rounds, a matter of seconds, it would have been done. It most likely would have taken a minute tops for them to bleed out. It was absolutely pointless to go back to slice their throats or "make sure" they were dead. This hints at malice and is certainly a matter of convenience. They *might* get back up. They *might* seek revenge. Etc. This was a way of ensuring against that as well not having to "deal" with taking them to the town they were going to anyway. It was absolutely a matter of convenience.
Actually the more convenet thing to do is just leave them to suffer, not grant them a merciful death. Also it does strike me as evil to leave to chance weather or not these highwaymen get another chance to kill and rob the innocent.
Or just makes for a great story. There are several redemption stories (one can even be made with the given choices easily in Ultimate Campaign as a PC background) where someone lives a life of crime, has an encounter with fate and turns their lives around. They were already practically consigned to die. They weren't suffering. They were unconscious as that's what the rules make you when you drop below 0 HP. They weren't feeling any pain. Now, if they were alert and pleading or thrashing about as they approached death I can see your point.
Still seems irresponsible that to assume any survivors are going to have a magical epiphany rather than going back to the life they know. Regardless, the motivation for killing them rather than leaving them to their fate isn't convenience.
I don't know what happened at the table or the what went on in the player's head when he did what he did, but I should probably note not every villain goes on a quest for redemption or becomes your friend after beating him up or leaving him naked in a ditch. Killing him is a low justice way of ensuring he doesn't do evil again. It also removes his chance for redemption. Letting him leave may mean he may go back to banditing, or it may mean he quits. Ups and downs to both sides. More importantly, how to deal with it and should alignment be the sole motive and predetermine your actions, and does the order fit the player? Also, what do the other players think, and does this sort of action make them uncomfortable or edgy.
Looking at all of what the DM has said, there was indication that there was mind control involved. Until you prove no mind control (where mind control has been an established issue already), then there is questionable territory over killing someone who attacked the party. No known symbols to associate them with any group? All the more reason to check.
There was every possible opportunity presented to show them mercy (and these guys definitely fall into the "wrong you" category; can't wrong you much more than trying to kill you and your traveling companions), and the cavalier chose to not only ignore the ideas, but prevent anyone else from undertaking these ideas.
Nope, not merciful in the least. Is it honorable to slow down the quest because you don't want anyone else doing something you feel is inconvenient? Someone who is either your social equal (or possibly social better, in this law-related situation)?
Quite a number of things either squeak along the border of the edicts, or just go blindly raging and destroying them. So I can't say whether the player was a dick, the PC was a dick, or both. Regardless, IC actions that break IC self-imposed laws must have IC consequences.
What is a rational explanation for a good character to make sure they're really dead, then, as you watch them bleed out before you if not for convenience or malice? They're not conscious as I said. They're not feeling pain. You're not "ending their suffering" as there's none to be had.
MIlo, his mind is made. You can not convince him. He will continue digging out little things to try to make his point. His opinion is Good should kill only in defense.
So they don't try to hurt people again. And once again, leaving them to their death is no different then killing them.
So convenience. The wounds the got as they indiscriminately attacked you is on them and not you. It's neither good nor evil that you defended yourself. Going to MAKE SURE those no good rotten sons a b%%%$es are dead is squarely evil.
I absolutely think good characters in the vast majority of situations should only kill in self defense or in protection of innocents as that's part of what it is to be good. I'm hard pressed to find a situation where a good character would straight up seek the death of someone outside of those situations.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
This is the morality of the game. If you're not doing THAT then you're not a good character. Personal opinion does not matter there.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
He killed them unnecessarily. They were down and no longer any threat. He had no compassion for them and so killed them simply because they were there and he didn't like what they were doing and didn't want to be responsible for them in anyway. When I say he killed them I mean specifically going to back to make sure they were dead dead.
If you still think "what about their previous crimes?" he knew nothing of them. As far as he knew they could have started being highwaymen that very day. Unlikely but possible. They could have been pressed into this by that mage. He was woefully ignorant to make those judgement calls.
If you think "what about the others they could go on killing and stealing from?" that's why you take them to the city. That has nothing to do with chaos or good. You're simply being a compassionate person who respects life in general and in doing so giving them whatever opportunities they might need to reform AS WELL AS ensuring they're in a place so they can't murder again.
Taking their gear or not would be the lawful/chaotic thing to do. Stealing is not "evil" in pathfinder and so doesn't fall into that spectrum.
Is it possible both Milo and Buri are biased about this morality thing? I mean it is an entirely subjective subject... Which is why it can be so hard to get everyone to agree on it.
No once again the most convient thing to do is simply shrug it off and leave. I actually find that the most reprehensible act because it means you didn't put any thought into it whatsoever. Attempting to kill five people once is enough to merit a death sentence, and it is not evil to carry it out.
How can you sincerely say "I will kill these guys even though they're no present danger to anyone" in the light of what I just quoted for good while not doing what I just quoted for evil?
How can you sincerely say "I will kill these guys even though they're no present danger to anyone" in the light of what I just quoted for good and not doing what I just quoted for evil?
Present danger is relative? Sure a threat isn't immediate, but not everyone is.
So, would it be healthier to talk about how things could've gone, dm solutions, and quick fixes rather than what was wrong in the moment?
|
As has been stated elsewhere in the thread, I think this may be more of an issue with the Cavalier's order than with his alignment.
With that said, these are the kinds of situations which I have historically found difficult to navigate, so I did something about it.
While there is no perfect solution to the problems of alignment violation, the book linked above aims to provide rules and guidelines which aren't just useful, but actually fun. At the very least, it can provide a more concrete and focused framework for arguing about alignment. :)
The answer then is you can't.
The moment was all that mattered as that's the moment he decided to not be good. The threat was gone and not even "they'll be back in 10 minutes if we don't do something" kind of gone. With just natural healing they would have been out for likely several days minimum and probably a week depending if/when they stabilized.
But they didn't just present a threat to the party, they present a threat to all of society.
H%$#~@!&%.
The worldwound is a threat to all society. An evil necromancer like the Whispering Tyrant is a threat to all society. Evil outsiders, wide spread evil cults, and monsters that prey on sentient creatures are threats to all society. These were literally low level thugs that two PCs took down. I'm assuming two as that's all that was mentioned.
They were a local problem easily solvable by taking them to the nearest city which is where they were going anyway. There would have been absolutely zero threat to the PCs to do this as they were out cold for AT LEAST 24 hours if they were just -1 HP and stable. There was a good chance of even maybe getting a bounty from them if they were really such a notorious "threat" for that area. Outside that area, at most that kingdom, they were completely unknown as that's the nature of the common criminal. They are nobodies.
I don't see how their relative fame matters. Attempted murder is attempted murder. Dosen't matter if your a black dragon or a back ally crook.
Outside that area, at most that kingdom, they were completely unknown as that's the nature of the common criminal. They are nobodies.
Not a threat to the world, still a threat to society. There is a difference. Level one adventurer's were once nothing when you think about it.
This conversation reminds me of a KOTOR II situation where there isn't a right answer.
Personally, I always preferred the idea that there is no right answer. The answer was to act. Its not about good or evil, its about the consequences for your actions.
A black dragon's nature is to be evil. Back alley crooks can, and often are, actually simply neutral persons with no other way to make a living. That's a huge difference.
I find it sort of astounding you think the response to a black dragon and a petty thug should be roughly equal: kill it and kill it dead.
Even Paizo says this. From the GMG NPC Gallery:
BANDIT LORD CR 11
CN Medium humanoid
SELLSWORD CR 7
N Medium humanoid
HIGHWAYMAN CR 6
CN Medium humanoidHighwaymen are notorious outlaws or flamboyant criminals who flaunt the law, prey upon innocent travellers, and revel in the discomfiture their predations have upon the local constabulary. Highwaymen love deception and trickery and elevate taunting to an art form. For highwaymen, the humiliation of an enemy can be more important than a successful heist.
Note, they DON'T revel in killing people. Just embarrassing them a bit and taking their stuff.
RAIDER CR 5
CN Medium humanoidRaiders are the children of the raging storm, wild warriors from the wrinkled hills and jagged mountains.
Burglar CR 2
N Medium humanoid
A street thug is "worse" than a highwayman even. They can even be smited by paladins!
STREET THUG CR 1
NE Medium humanoid
Then we have your black dragon.
BLACK DRAGON
CE dragon (water)Lording over the darkest swamps and marshes, black dragons are the undisputed masters of their domain, ruling through cruelty and intimidation. Those who dwell within a black dragon's reach live in fear.
But no, treat them exactly the same is how you'd do it, yes?
At any rate, I'm going to step away from the alignment argument and step up to the Edicts, as that is the more relevant issue. The two relevant issues are as follows:
1. You must show mercy to those that have wronged you.
2. You must be just and honorable at all times.
It should be noted that just comes first. At any rate lets ask ourselves, "Can a honorable man support the death penalty for attempted murder." Now honorable can mean many things, but since we are talking about a code of nights lets look at the concept of chilvery. It meant different things in different European countries, but virtually all of them endorsed capital punishment, which knights would frequently carry out. The answer becomes even more clear cut if we take a look at bushido in Japan. It seems that in this context at least an honrable man can support the death penalty. If he does it's only just that he carries out his beliefs. Infact not doing so would be a violation of his code.
The more troublesome edict is "You must show mercy to those that have wronged you." This will vary heavily from gm to gm, and I can respect a ruling either way. But here is my perspective. It seems to me that the intent of this edict is to forbid the cavalier from seeking revenge. Should someone wrong him personally, it would be improper for him to retaliate, unless it was in the aid of others. However in the case where criminals are attacking travelers indiscriminately, a cavalier's duty is to ensure the criminals don't threaten others again. To show them mercy and leave them be would violate his edict to be just at all times. A cavalier must forgive wrongs commited against him, but is not his place to forgive the wrongs they have inflicted upon others. Otherwise a cavalier could kill a serial killer only if that serial killer never tried to kill the cavalier.
Personally, I always preferred the idea that there is no right answer. The answer was to act. Its not about good or evil, its about the consequences for your actions.
Pathfinder alignment has always been about what you DO with yourself. Otherwise most people would eventually be evil or undetermined as each area has had its tyrant at one point or another no? How would Pharasma judge who goes where if people's alignment shifted constantly due to the ramifications of their actions rather than the actions themselves?
This is what I meant about Pathfinder having a knowable, absolute alignment system. The consequences for your actions in the afterlife are generally well known in Golarion. Bad people go to bad places and good ones go to good places. The good and evil spectrum are distinct, polar opposites in such a universe. Neutral people are the weird ones. :P
A black dragon's nature is to be evil. Back alley crooks can, and often are, actually simply neutral persons with no other way to make a living. That's a huge difference.
I find it sort of astounding you think the response to a black dragon and a petty thug should be roughly equal: kill it and kill it dead.
Even Paizo says this. From the GMG NPC Gallery:
BANDIT LORD CR 11
CN Medium humanoidSELLSWORD CR 7
N Medium humanoidHIGHWAYMAN CR 6
CN Medium humanoidHighwaymen are notorious outlaws or flamboyant criminals who flaunt the law, prey upon innocent travellers, and revel in the discomfiture their predations have upon the local constabulary. Highwaymen love deception and trickery and elevate taunting to an art form. For highwaymen, the humiliation of an enemy can be more important than a successful heist.
Note, they DON'T revel in killing people. Just embarrassing them a bit and taking their stuff.
RAIDER CR 5
CN Medium humanoidRaiders are the children of the raging storm, wild warriors from the wrinkled hills and jagged mountains.
Burglar CR 2
N Medium humanoidA street thug is "worse" than a highwayman even. They can even be smited by paladins!
STREET THUG CR 1
NE Medium humanoidThen we have your black dragon.
But no, treat them exactly the same is how you'd do it, yes?BLACK DRAGON
CE dragon (water)Lording over the darkest swamps and marshes, black dragons are the undisputed masters of their domain, ruling through cruelty and intimidation. Those who dwell within a black dragon's reach live in fear.
All I said is people should be judged by their actions, not their fame. If somone killed five people, they should receive the proper judgement. It dosen't matter if you are a CR 1/2 commoner or a black dragon. In fact I wouldn't kill a black dragon unless I knew it did something wrong.
The title of the thread is about alignment, Milo, and it is part of the OPs question. Like it or not that's why the thread exists. :)
If you want to break it down to definitions and get precise I did that earlier. They clearly wronged him yet he showed no mercy. Your example of a serial killer doesn't make sense as a good person would try to protect innocents. If you were playing a neutral cavalier they may not very well care though.
All I said is people should be judged by their actions, not their fame. If somone killed five people, they should receive the proper judgement. It dosen't matter if you are a CR 1/2 commoner or a black dragon. In fact I wouldn't kill a black dragon unless I knew it did something wrong.
A simple knowledge check would tell you about their general nature as a race. If it were somehow good or simply "not evil" it would be an exception and probably rather evident in some form most likely evidenced by it not trying to eat you right away or a general lack of trying to scare you like its kin would.
This is the morality of the game. If you're not doing THAT then you're not a good character. Personal opinion does not matter there.
Oh man, the eighteen billion alignment debates would have something to say about that. Oh right. We're in one.
Honestly, hard to comment about the actions of a character without actually knowing the character. Alignment is a label and it doesn't tell the whole story.
It seems weird that the orders don't actually have an alignment component attached to them, since actually keeping the edicts of them often requires you to be lawful, or strongly suggests a certain alignment.
I imagine it's to simply not pigeonhole your concept at the outset. You can easily be Lawful Neutral with at least the order of the sword. I don't see an evil alignment pulling it off though. Evil inherently feeds of the weak. It doesn't give back to them through charity.
Likely.
They could have maybe done the one-step rule for them, like cleric alignments and gods.
A good cavalier of the Cockatrice would have a hell of a time.
The title of the thread is about alignment, Milo, and it is part of the OPs question. Like it or not that's why the thread exists. :)
Sure, but people have read our opinions on that particular subject and neither of us are really contributing anything new. As several other posts point out, as far as in game consequences go, the more relevant question is weather or not the player violated his edict.
I'm saying that killing those would be murders does protect the inncent just like the serial killer example.
A good cavalier of the Cockatrice would have a hell of a time.
Actually, that sounds like a very intriguing character concept. The key would to play someone who views helping others as a means to help and aid himself. It would require a specific sort of campaign, but so long as your personal goal is something like "I will use the peoples hatred of the tyrant to dethrone him and rule. To that end I must cultivate a reputation of honor and good. Helping others helps myself" Challenging, but rewarding if done well.
But the real question is, would we be having this argument if these would be murderers were simply mind controlled mercenaries, Milo? Or if they were another town's guards that had been mind controlled?